It's the first thing me and my sister said. We said they showed a flashback of Two Face and mentioned Dent/Two Face but not once did they utter a word about the Joker. The guy in Clown faced make up who was like a mini city centric Osama Bin Laden? I mean that is just ridiculous and I'd like to sell a bridge to the person who believes that Ledger's death didn't drastically change the film that we all saw this past summer.

There is no other conclusion one can draw other than Ledger's death changing everything. When you have a filmmaker who can't even mention the big bad of the last film you have a filmmaker who is hindered by his emotions. It's understandable because he is human after all but I wish he and the writers hadn't let it get to their art that much. It's fine not to recast and show the Joker but it's ridiculous to not mention him or directly mention the effect he had on the city. You and others have been explaining the Joker thing better than I would have. After TDK I did expect to see some Joker immitators and the like. I mean the Joker was big freakin deal. And no I didn't expect the movie to be about the Joker at all but I did expect to feel his presence.

The whole full circle LOS plot seemed lazy to me when I heard it and when I finally saw it in action.

I couldn't agree more. I still don't see how mentioning the Joker would have hurt Heath's memory in any way. Mentioning a great character he so brilliantly brought to life is a compliment, IMO.

It was Nolan's call, but I won't pretend to understand his reasoning, let alone agree with it.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

So, basically the Dent act does make Gotham a crime free City at the cost of suppressing the citizen's fundamental rights.

Those are some excellent finds (especially the Boston Occupier one, which goes back to what I was saying earlier about the distinction between "myth" and "doctrine" in the film ) and it goes to show that the idea of the Dent Act being believable and relatable to real-world mandates is firmly there. What I don't get (and why's everyone ignoring that part of my comments?!) is that this is a speculation thread, conjecture and speculation are part of the nature. We all have different interpretations of this film -- it's what makes each of our points unique. What I don't understand is the extreme positions of something (like the Dent Act) either being a complete success or an utter failure. It's not. It works both ways.

That was the whole friggin point of it in the movie itself. A paradox.

But Lobster what I want to add is this: the whole idea that some act gives the govt. more power than it previously had? That's true of any government acts or ammendments, doesn't necessarily mean it makes the Dent Act equivalent to the Patriot Act. It might be similar, and you can argue that, but not the exact same thing. The Patriot Act has its own share of elephants in the room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Best posts in the thread. All based on facts. Zero conjecture.

Except the movie never said any of that. Nobody said citizens were denied anything because of the Dent Act.

You're conjecturing. Normal for this thread though.

Which part of citizens not having parole is not part of the Dent Act mentioned in the film? Which part about the Dent Act being this omnipotent doctrine of decadence was not implied in the course of the film?

At the end of TDK they made a point to show that both the criminals and the citizens make up the city, that "it's full of people ready to believe in good." In other words, criminals are citizens too.

I get that you hate the movie just don't act smug about it. Also, I don't see why you're hanging around if the only thing you have to say about TDKR is "it's a lousy movie." The Hype's got other threads mate, you don't have to stick around debating about a movie you didn't like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think so, absolutely. The key to understanding this is, in the beginning of the film he's seeking a way out by death (subconsciously). By the end, his way out is the very conscious decision of choosing a successor and finally living his life. His peace is in both being able to escape the cycle (pain), and finding a way to allow his symbol to transcend him and become something larger.

I also think we should make the Dent Act its own thread if that debate is to continue.

This thread has a place for the Dent Act if it has to do with Bruce's own characteristics, otherwise, yeah you're right.

So let's take it further:

Bruce has been crusading about justice since Batman Begins, and his definition has at its heart this idea that you don't kill criminals. The Dent Act denies parole, something that I'm sure Batman would agree with. In NML he locked up the scum and separated them from the populace. Arkham's all about being imprisoned and not for capital punishment, while at the same time being this eternal purgatory sort of place. Imagine that without ever getting out (the Joker's said to already be committed to this fate).

What I want to know is that if Batman's idea of justice has been so well realised with the Dent Act, why do we have a movie that criticises that point and shows us how wrong it was to begin with? Or does everyone understand it as only that sense of relative peace that Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Two-Face established at the end of TDK and not Batman's own ideal situation?

__________________

THE JUSTICE BULLETIN published some of my thematic analysis on the symbolism in Nolan's superhero saga.
I call it Heroic Archetypes. You can read the parts on Batman Begins in the following links:
(pt 1; pt 2; pt 3; pt 4; pt 5; pt 6; pt 7)

I couldn't agree more. I still don't see how mentioning the Joker would have hurt Heath's memory in any way. Mentioning a great character he so brilliantly brought to life is a compliment, IMO.

It was Nolan's call, but I won't pretend to understand his reasoning, let alone agree with it.

Yeah they should've mentioned the Joker at least once. I mean I get that the idea is that "We have bigger problems than the Joker" as TDKR starts off, I also get why they felt like they needed to move away from the status quo of superheroes and supervillains that was a staple of the last film, but since they mentioned almost everyone else, the Joker should've been given that nudge.

Maybe they respected the character/performance too much that a passing mention looked bad on paper?

__________________

THE JUSTICE BULLETIN published some of my thematic analysis on the symbolism in Nolan's superhero saga.
I call it Heroic Archetypes. You can read the parts on Batman Begins in the following links:
(pt 1; pt 2; pt 3; pt 4; pt 5; pt 6; pt 7)

For those who want to continue discussing the characterisation of Bruce Wayne in this:

I've been thinking a lot about how Bruce's vendetta against the criminal underworld is such a big part of his life, to the point where his work is his life, and the film certainly addresses this issue. And to an extent I suppose I understand the idea that when you have some kind of work or an agenda in your life you commit 100% of yourself to that, at the expense of any other life or indulgence you might give to yourself. Jonathan Kent even shares this characteristic (in an ideal portrayal, he never does anything for himself, there's a reason why I'm mentioning him here).

What we see here is essentially a man who sacrifices himself for the benefit of others, a utilitarian cause; it's where self-sacrifice is the ultimate heroic trait. And that's fine. But then again, if we look closer this means that in the big excuse for individualism, it means that a person can no longer have any life outside of his work because his job defines him (it's not who you are underneath but what you do that defines you). From a Western, existential, individualistic, and downright capitalist sense of the idea, it makes sense. From my own personal viewpoint, an overruling capitalist society dehumanises the individual and alienates him from his kin; the man, like so much of the heroes emerging from early-20th century Modernist literature (Kafka's Gregor Samsa, Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock, Miller's Willy Loman, etc.) of which Bruce Wayne is a part, is isolated.

Now, my question is this: when we see Bruce forbidding himself a personal life in the expense of being Batman, are we really looking at a capitalist mentality, a bourgeois value so to speak, that insists its workers to work and forget their human side? It certainly goes back to Jonathan Kent being self-less, and extends all the way to a very Greek (who were good with trade) concept of a hero: Odysseus, the individual being the center of the world. Or am I reading this wrong and what this essentially shows is not a bourgeois philosophy where production is emphasised, but rather reflective of the working-man's struggle and his continued struggle to survive in any world? Thereby making Bruce more akin to a proletariat (bear with me!) struggling for revolution?

Batman's imposing his own sense of order in Gotham, the focus is clearly individualistic. But does that mean that the concept of the individual is limited to bourgeois ideals alone? I'm thinking that, let's say the situation arises where Bruce has over-burdened himself with work, where there's literally too many cases to be solved and he can't solve them altogether at once and is undergoing an overload. Of course he'd never admit it and he'd plough through at the expense of his own health/sanity, whatever (Knightfall); but is that right? He's denying his individuality for the sake of his duty. Throughout this trilogy he keeps saying that he "can't make it personal" otherwise he's "just another vigilante" who can be locked up, destroyed, blah blah, who's "lost in the scramble for his own self-gratification."

Now, a bourgeois philosophy emphasising on the self and on the individual would encourage a vigilante who gets his revenge and is satisfied, whereas a proletariat hero would insist on doing it for "the greater good."

But at the same time if we're talking about Utilitarianism or Pragmatism, the idea becomes a bourgeois value because it means "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." In other words, an ideal democracy. I know Batman is anything but democratic but the principle of an individual bringing about change in a society is a democratic idea. Moreover, if the "greatest good" is "pleasure" it becomes a bourgeois or capitalist ideology bent on profit.

I know that Batman exists outside both political spheres and is not one or the either and not even meant to be reflective of either (perhaps a combination of both if that's such a hard concept to embrace), but I'm wondering what Bruce's dehumanisation says about him in the broader sense?

When overwhelmed with "the mission," does Batman stop and take a weekend so that he can do the job better when he's not "compromised," or does he "compensate" for his inactivity, insists that "this is for a greater cause" than his own health, and goes overboard and ultimately breaks himself? These issues are directly addressed in TDKR. But if he takes that day off, does it make his crusade a bourgeois sentiment where he pats himself on the back and says "oh well I tried my best." Or does saying "I can do the best work when I'm in best shape myself" make him a promoter of bourgeois ideals?

If not, if he really is doing this for the sake of Gotham, what's really wrong about "hiring" a bunch of capable crime-fighters "and take the rest of the weekend off" ?

__________________

THE JUSTICE BULLETIN published some of my thematic analysis on the symbolism in Nolan's superhero saga.
I call it Heroic Archetypes. You can read the parts on Batman Begins in the following links:
(pt 1; pt 2; pt 3; pt 4; pt 5; pt 6; pt 7)

What I want to know is that if Batman's idea of justice has been so well realised with the Dent Act, why do we have a movie that criticises that point and shows us how wrong it was to begin with? Or does everyone understand it as only that sense of relative peace that Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Two-Face established at the end of TDK and not Batman's own ideal situation?

I think the idea is that it's just band-aid, or as Nolan himself said "papering over the cracks". It has contorted Gotham into this bizarro alternate universe where it's become a false paradise. Gordon and Batman both carry this truth in personal ways. For Gordon, the weight of it being based on a lie is becoming too much to deal with. While Bruce still has this hunger inside to be Batman and a lingering thirst for justice, despite the fact that it's already been "achieved". He's lost.

As far as the rest of Gotham? I suppose they'd be politically split on the ideas the Dent Act represents, but I'd imagine not too many people are complaining about the mob being gone and things being quiet.

I'm not comparing it to the Patriot Act (I realize its a separate issue with its own can of worms), but just to use a real life parallel- someone might be opposed to the Patriot Act in spirit, but when a terrorist plot is foiled through the use of it...that's usually not the time that they're going to speak up about it. You know?

I think the idea is that it's just band-aid, or as Nolan himself said "papering over the cracks". It has contorted Gotham into this bizarro alternate universe where it's become a false paradise. Gordon and Batman both carry this truth in personal ways. For Gordon, the weight of it being based on a lie is becoming too much to deal with. While Bruce still has this hunger inside to be Batman and a lingering thirst for justice, despite the fact that it's already been "achieved". He's lost.

As far as the rest of Gotham? I suppose they'd be politically split on the ideas the Dent Act represents, but I'd imagine not too many people are complaining about the mob being gone and things being quiet.

I'm not comparing it to the Patriot Act (I realize its a separate issue with its own can of worms), but just to use a real life parallel- someone might be opposed to the Patriot Act in spirit, but when a terrorist plot is foiled through the use of it...that's usually not the time that they're going to speak up about it. You know?

Yeah I get that completely. If it's a band-aid then it's temporary, and so with Batman we have this figure who has to be a constant and perpetual avenger, so that he feels like he has to exist even though there are the laws of man making it so that he no long has to. Kind of like a voice of reason.

But, I don't necessarily see him as a figure of anti-govt. in these movies. Certainly not in the way Frank Miller wrote him. Yes, there's that instance where in TDK we see democracy (the people voting on the fairies) being reduced to an inadequate qualifier (it's the people's own goodwill that saves them, not their collective or individual rationale), but Batman cannot act unless these people are saving themselves: so he took that faith in them and went out to tackle the Joker instead (which is later proven to be the right decision all along). The anti-govt. figure in these films has been the Joker, and Bane's the sort of New World Order guy. But if Batman still feels like there's some sense of justice that isn't being accomplished thanks to the Dent Act (and he's proven right again), then it means that we do see a certain Marxist tendency in him right? Of constant revolution? I mean, it's not like he's the ideal candidate to run Wayne Enterprises .

Bruce is always talking about "shaking the people out of apathy," not unlike Marx's own idea of making people "class conscious." His ideal of trying to "inspire people into action" (against the mob and then later against injustice in general) is a revolutionary ideal about a mass participation. With Bane we have someone who holds the same sort of ambition and ideology, but it doesn't necessarily make Batman a symbol of the 1%.

__________________

THE JUSTICE BULLETIN published some of my thematic analysis on the symbolism in Nolan's superhero saga.
I call it Heroic Archetypes. You can read the parts on Batman Begins in the following links:
(pt 1; pt 2; pt 3; pt 4; pt 5; pt 6; pt 7)

Well from a Marxist point of view, I guess he wouldn't ever consider hiring someone for his work either. That's exactly what the bourgeoisie does with surplus capital--hire others to do their labour. My understanding of Marxism is still vague (so any help from you guys would be highly appreciated), but I see that mindset as defining a man by his labour. A capitalist/bourgeois/materialist class promotes labour as a means to get something done: capital, status, or product, while encouraging the working class to hold that their meagre work is in itself worthwhile. It isn't because it's a justification of the "exploitation" at work here. On the other hand, Marx defines labour as something one needs for survival and practical purposes, while on another level, defines labour as something through which there can be social betterment. So you have activists in the proletariat who are struggling for a utopian cause.

For Bruce, "labour" is his activities as Batman: his "vow" to rid the city of criminals. The same, I assume, is for Gordon. Bruce Wayne, despite being a billionaire owner of Wayne Enterprises, is NOT a capitalist mogul in this trilogy! He's the opposite and carries a very astute Marxist mindset with him.

In addition to the utopian cause, his "class" is simply the community of "good people" in Gotham that he's fighting for. Marx refers to the bourgeoisie as a class that is able to exploit another class because of its surplus income, through which it can hire others to do their "labour" and is therefore perceived as corrupt. Similarly, in The Dark Knight we see Bruce insisting why there cannot be anyone else who does his crime-fighting for him -- he can't just hire someone to be Batman because he isn't being a capitalist pig here who lets someone else do his bidding (I'll get to the idea of identity in a bit).

Now, since we've seen that in bourgeois mentality there is an emphasis on labour as status, and similarly in the socialist mentality it is perceived that the bourgeois is the ruling class because they've "controlled the means of production," that is, they have "controlled labour," the definition of labour as identity (and therefore profession as existence) precedes both the Marxist and the Capitalist perspectives to labour. In other words, it comes down to labour for the sake of survival. Why does a man work? On one hand, yes, it is for survival, but on another he could've chosen any other line of work to achieve that survival, therefore there is something fulfilling in his occupation that makes him choose his line of work. Now, you could say that it's because it's the only work he can find. And that's valid also, because then you can argue that a man works and is connected to his labour because that's the labour he's most capable of doing. It doesn't have to be only because he's "naturally born" for it; one can develop any set of skills and "nurture" the skills for labour later in life. So it comes down to what the man simply does. In other words, it's not who you are underneath (that sort of mentality and focus on abstract principles would be a bourgeois value, since sitting around and talking about inner-awesomeness is a bourgeois luxury), but what you do (labour) that defines you.

Let's take it a step further. The ultimate utilitarian/pragmatist/Batman-parallel from political philosophy was Machiavelli and his whole doctrine of "the ends justifying the means." Now, that's immediately both a bourgeois and a Marxist sentiment. It's bourgeois because Machiavelli uses that logic to justify exploitation; it's Marxist because Machiavelli uses that same logic to aid his society. The concept of a leader isn't explicitly written out in Marx (so far as I've read him, I could be wrong) since the focus is on community and shared experiences. Now, Batman never says that what he does -- fighting crime -- cannot be done by Gotham's citizens, as a citizen of Gotham he pretty much keeps that sentiment intact. But what he does insist is that no one else can ever be Batman because that's his identity. And in Machievelli's The Prince, there is this idea that The Prince is engaged in an activity and no one else in the world can do. It is, in Marxian terms, his own labour, that requires sacrifice (self-sacrifice is an act of dehumanization that goes back to a ruling class conspiring to alienate and isolate the workers so that they lose their humanity, so it's no good to me in this debate). Machiavelli's idea of labour that no one else can commit, is very well reflected in Batman: "you can make the choices no one else can make, the right one" Alfred says of Bruce's role.

Labour constitutes identity in all three perspectives. For the bourgeois, it constitutes status and something they are "ignorant" of; for the Marxist, it constitutes that basic set of skills with which the man can serve his class and acquire his rightfully-earned survival; and for the Machiavellian Prince, it's that one work that he alone is capable of doing. In other words, a man works because his labour defines his identity. But this labour isn't simply his profession during the day, that is, it isn't simply the Bruce Wayne persona. As it constitutes identity, "labour" can be defined as something that a person is doing in every waking moment of his life -- so a surgeon isn't a "doctor" or someone "who helps other people," he / his labour is the actual ACT OF SURGERY. But that extends to his other "activities" as well, such as say, being a father, an heir to Wayne Enterprises, a husband, as well as a citizen of Gotham City. Similarly, Bruce is Batman the crime-fighter, the detective, the symbol of heroism, as well as this man who has trained himself to his peak.

When he stops being Batman that doesn't necessarily mean he stops his labour or his activity, because even when you're not doing something, you are being yourself -- being conscious alone constitutes identity constitutes labour. It's just not one single thing, but everything that a person does throughout his life. Therefore, even in TDKR when Bruce isn't being Batman, he's still Batman. He's just doing something else as Batman because logically speaking "no one does nothing." He is still engaged in his identity. When Rachel said "there will not be a time when you no longer need Batman" that's just crazy talk because "not being Batman," that is, not being engaged in one's labour, would mean "to not exist." It's like saying "I'll fall in love with you after you die."

Celtic mythology has a story about "the coming of Lugh," where the eponymous young man walks up to a king's court and asks for admittance. He is denied, the gatekeeper tells him that he requires a specific skill (labour) in order to be admitted. Lugh says he's a carpenter, but the gatekeeper tells him that the king already has a carpenter; so Lugh tries again and says he's a smith, the gatekeeper again says they have a pretty good smith. This goes on for some time and Lugh essentially tells the gatekeeper about one skill after another until the gatekeeper tells him that they have someone for each of these skills. Lugh responds: do you have someone who possesses all of these skills and abilities? The gatekeeper says no, and he proceeds to go to the king and allow this "master of all arts" to enter the city. The story extends further but my point is, that like Lugh, that's labour. Not just one thing, but everything that a man does in his life, even the trivial things, can be gathered up to represent his labour and therefore his identity.

THAT'S Batman for you: a character split into three parts becoming one whole, Bruce Wayne the playboy, Bruce Wayne the orphan/detective, and Batman the crime-fighter.

In other words, he never stops being Batman until the day he dies.

(thanks for reading -- I had to take a week's worth of "time out" from work to recover from a recent medical set-back, I'm better now, but all the inaction was driving me insane. I had to write it out like this. we all have Batman in our belfry).

__________________

THE JUSTICE BULLETIN published some of my thematic analysis on the symbolism in Nolan's superhero saga.
I call it Heroic Archetypes. You can read the parts on Batman Begins in the following links:
(pt 1; pt 2; pt 3; pt 4; pt 5; pt 6; pt 7)

Well from a Marxist point of view, I guess he wouldn't ever consider hiring someone for his work either. That's exactly what the bourgeoisie does with surplus capital--hire others to do their labour. My understanding of Marxism is still vague (so any help from you guys would be highly appreciated), but I see that mindset as defining a man by his labour. A capitalist/bourgeois/materialist class promotes labour as a means to get something done: capital, status, or product, while encouraging the working class to hold that their meagre work is in itself worthwhile. It isn't because it's a justification of the "exploitation" at work here. On the other hand, Marx defines labour as something one needs for survival and practical purposes, while on another level, defines labour as something through which there can be social betterment. So you have activists in the proletariat who are struggling for a utopian cause.

For Bruce, "labour" is his activities as Batman: his "vow" to rid the city of criminals. The same, I assume, is for Gordon. Bruce Wayne, despite being a billionaire owner of Wayne Enterprises, is NOT a capitalist mogul in this trilogy! He's the opposite and carries a very astute Marxist mindset with him.

In addition to the utopian cause, his "class" is simply the community of "good people" in Gotham that he's fighting for. Marx refers to the bourgeoisie as a class that is able to exploit another class because of its surplus income, through which it can hire others to do their "labour" and is therefore perceived as corrupt. Similarly, in The Dark Knight we see Bruce insisting why there cannot be anyone else who does his crime-fighting for him -- he can't just hire someone to be Batman because he isn't being a capitalist pig here who lets someone else do his bidding (I'll get to the idea of identity in a bit).

Now, since we've seen that in bourgeois mentality there is an emphasis on labour as status, and similarly in the socialist mentality it is perceived that the bourgeois is the ruling class because they've "controlled the means of production," that is, they have "controlled labour," the definition of labour as identity (and therefore profession as existence) precedes both the Marxist and the Capitalist perspectives to labour. In other words, it comes down to labour for the sake of survival. Why does a man work? On one hand, yes, it is for survival, but on another he could've chosen any other line of work to achieve that survival, therefore there is something fulfilling in his occupation that makes him choose his line of work. Now, you could say that it's because it's the only work he can find. And that's valid also, because then you can argue that a man works and is connected to his labour because that's the labour he's most capable of doing. It doesn't have to be only because he's "naturally born" for it; one can develop any set of skills and "nurture" the skills for labour later in life. So it comes down to what the man simply does. In other words, it's not who you are underneath (that sort of mentality and focus on abstract principles would be a bourgeois value, since sitting around and talking about inner-awesomeness is a bourgeois luxury), but what you do (labour) that defines you.

Let's take it a step further. The ultimate utilitarian/pragmatist/Batman-parallel from political philosophy was Machiavelli and his whole doctrine of "the ends justifying the means." Now, that's immediately both a bourgeois and a Marxist sentiment. It's bourgeois because Machiavelli uses that logic to justify exploitation; it's Marxist because Machiavelli uses that same logic to aid his society. The concept of a leader isn't explicitly written out in Marx (so far as I've read him, I could be wrong) since the focus is on community and shared experiences. Now, Batman never says that what he does -- fighting crime -- cannot be done by Gotham's citizens, as a citizen of Gotham he pretty much keeps that sentiment intact. But what he does insist is that no one else can ever be Batman because that's his identity. And in Machievelli's The Prince, there is this idea that The Prince is engaged in an activity and no one else in the world can do. It is, in Marxian terms, his own labour, that requires sacrifice (self-sacrifice is an act of dehumanization that goes back to a ruling class conspiring to alienate and isolate the workers so that they lose their humanity, so it's no good to me in this debate). Machiavelli's idea of labour that no one else can commit, is very well reflected in Batman: "you can make the choices no one else can make, the right one" Alfred says of Bruce's role.

Labour constitutes identity in all three perspectives. For the bourgeois, it constitutes status and something they are "ignorant" of; for the Marxist, it constitutes that basic set of skills with which the man can serve his class and acquire his rightfully-earned survival; and for the Machiavellian Prince, it's that one work that he alone is capable of doing. In other words, a man works because his labour defines his identity. But this labour isn't simply his profession during the day, that is, it isn't simply the Bruce Wayne persona. As it constitutes identity, "labour" can be defined as something that a person is doing in every waking moment of his life -- so a surgeon isn't a "doctor" or someone "who helps other people," he / his labour is the actual ACT OF SURGERY. But that extends to his other "activities" as well, such as say, being a father, an heir to Wayne Enterprises, a husband, as well as a citizen of Gotham City. Similarly, Bruce is Batman the crime-fighter, the detective, the symbol of heroism, as well as this man who has trained himself to his peak.

When he stops being Batman that doesn't necessarily mean he stops his labour or his activity, because even when you're not doing something, you are being yourself -- being conscious alone constitutes identity constitutes labour. It's just not one single thing, but everything that a person does throughout his life. Therefore, even in TDKR when Bruce isn't being Batman, he's still Batman. He's just doing something else as Batman because logically speaking "no one does nothing." He is still engaged in his identity. When Rachel said "there will not be a time when you no longer need Batman" that's just crazy talk because "not being Batman," that is, not being engaged in one's labour, would mean "to not exist." It's like saying "I'll fall in love with you after you die."

Celtic mythology has a story about "the coming of Lugh," where the eponymous young man walks up to a king's court and asks for admittance. He is denied, the gatekeeper tells him that he requires a specific skill (labour) in order to be admitted. Lugh says he's a carpenter, but the gatekeeper tells him that the king already has a carpenter; so Lugh tries again and says he's a smith, the gatekeeper again says they have a pretty good smith. This goes on for some time and Lugh essentially tells the gatekeeper about one skill after another until the gatekeeper tells him that they have someone for each of these skills. Lugh responds: do you have someone who possesses all of these skills and abilities? The gatekeeper says no, and he proceeds to go to the king and allow this "master of all arts" to enter the city. The story extends further but my point is, that like Lugh, that's labour. Not just one thing, but everything that a man does in his life, even the trivial things, can be gathered up to represent his labour and therefore his identity.

THAT'S Batman for you: a character split into three parts becoming one whole, Bruce Wayne the playboy, Bruce Wayne the orphan/detective, and Batman the crime-fighter.

In other words, he never stops being Batman until the day he dies.

(thanks for reading -- I had to take a week's worth of "time out" from work to recover from a recent medical set-back, I'm better now, but all the inaction was driving me insane. I had to write it out like this. we all have Batman in our belfry).

What they are open-minded to though is refusing to accept that others have different views on those particular aspects and then acting smug about it/belittling them for it. Nice.

Spare me the dramatics. Nobody is refusing to accept anything. There's a difference between not agreeing with a point of view, and refusing to accept that someone has one.

The only ones doing the belittling are the ones who accuse the critics of "not getting it" or "it being their own problem and not the movie's problem". I can give you many links to that, too, if you really want to push this point.

Nice indeed.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Spare me the dramatics. Nobody is refusing to accept anything. There's a difference between not agreeing with a point of view, and refusing to accept that someone has one.

The only ones doing the belittling are the ones who accuse the critics of "not getting it" or "it being their own problem and not the movie's problem". I can give you many links to that, too, if you really want to push this point.

Nice indeed.

No thanks. Don't subscribe to that particular viewpoint.

But if it's links you want...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Plenty of posters have been called on "making things up" or "reading into" films a bit too much over the years. There's "interpreting" films, and assessing whats actually there, in the content of the writing and the film itself, and there's making stuff up. The latter seems to be happening a bit more these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

The lengths people are going to to defend this movie are ridiculous. I'm glad Fudgie and The Joker are in here arguing with you guys because I don't certainly have the patience for it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudgie

It's only in your mind.

So you might want to take a closer look when making claims such as "the only ones doing the belittling..." (and those are just three quotes in a 26 page thread). Not to mention you even acknowledged one of the above posters earlier in the thread, so you're either being intentionally ignorant or a hypocrite.

The belittling takes place on both sides, whether you want to admit it or not. It always does in debates such as this. But it's clear you don't like some particular aspects of TDKR, which is perfectly fine because: 1. it's your opinion and 2. you raise some valid points and are not the only one. I myself was disappointed with some aspects, especially immediately after seeing the movie, but I have managed to reconcile some of them in the meanwhile (not saying you should as well). But the reasons for which TDKR disappointed some of us are probably a subject for a different thread.

What I don't understand is this: why is it such a big deal when some people want to see aspects that you didn't like about this movie in a positive light? I mean, it's not like they're trying to see something positive in cinematic abominations such as Twilight or Transformers, which everyone seems to dislike. This is Chris Nolan's Bat trilogy, one of the best trilogies in recent memory. Is it your disappointment with TDKR or is it something else? Because during my time on these forums I've consistently noticed this trend. And I understand that Nolan's take just wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but what's the issue with it being anyone else's?

What i've actually understand now is how a lot of people didn't understand TDK ending , and Bruce sacrifice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

If TDKR was a let down then you guys have really high standards.

I also have some nice samples of moderators having to interject and silence some of these trolling remarks, too, if you like?

Quote:

So you might want to take a closer look when making claims such as "the only ones doing the belittling..." (and those are just three quotes in a 26 page thread). Not to mention you even acknowledged one of the above posters earlier in the thread, so you're either being intentionally ignorant or a hypocrite.

Ok, lets break down the three quotes you've supplied;

The Guard's post was based on people making up hypothetical scenarios that were not even in the movie or supported by events and quotes in the movie. Go back and look at the context of the discussion before you take his post out of context. What he said was perfectly valid. People were basically conjecturing with fairy tales.

MAKAVELI25's is the exact same.

Fudgie's was in response to the defenders telling US that the criticisms made against the movie were only "in our minds". This happened in several threads. Hence why he used their own quote against one of them.

Quote:

The belittling takes place on both sides, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh there's belittling on both sides, no question, but 90% of any belittling remarks usually come in response to those who have been belittled in the first place.

I'll tell you something else, the belittling remarks from the defenders are far more vitriolic. I mean have you seen any name calling going on from the critics, or saying something so asinine as the movie had no problems, the problem is with the viewers?

I've never seen any moderators have to step in and tell any of the critics off before for going too far. But I have with the defenders.

Quote:

It always does in debates such as this. But it's clear you don't like some particular aspects of TDKR, which is perfectly fine because: 1. it's your opinion and 2. you raise some valid points and are not the only one. I myself was disappointed with some aspects, especially immediately after seeing the movie, but I have managed to reconcile some of them in the meanwhile (not saying you should as well). But the reasons for which TDKR disappointed some of us are probably a subject for a different thread.

But this is a thread which pertains to an aspect of the movie that disappointed some people, namely the characterization of Batman. It didn't sit well with many people that Nolan decided to retire Batman for 8 years after TDK. So naturally it would be raised in a thread like this.

Quote:

What I don't understand is this: why is it such a big deal when some people want to see aspects that you didn't like about this movie in a positive light? I mean, it's not like they're trying to see something positive in cinematic abominations such as Twilight or Transformers, which everyone seems to dislike.

Who says it's a big deal? Why do you see it as a big deal because someone posts an opinion on a public DISCUSSION message board, and people disagree with it? That's what these forums are for. Discussion.

This isn't the TDKR fan club. There's going to be critics and detractors as much as there will be fans of it.

Quote:

This is Chris Nolan's Bat trilogy, one of the best trilogies in recent memory. Is it your disappointment with TDKR or is it something else? Because during my time on these forums I've consistently noticed this trend. And I understand that Nolan's take just wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but what's the issue with it being anyone else's?

I can't speak for all of the critics and detractors of this movie, I can only speak for myself. My disappointment of the movie comes from several of the creative choices made in the movie. Certain contradictions to the previous movie, such as the LOS motive for killing Gotham when it was in peace time. Under use of characters like Alfred and Gordon. Too much time spent with less interesting characters like Foley and Blake. Not enough time spent with characters who needed more screen time like Selina and Miranda. Bad plot points like Blake simply recognizing Bruce is Batman from a look on his face.

I could go on but that's just a sampling. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed TDKR very much, and I am hopeful when I watch it again on blu-ray in a couple of weeks I'll have an even greater appreciation for it. It's happened to me before. It's happening with fans for The Amazing Spider-Man. A lot of them have loved it even more since it was released recently. A lot of dramatic changes in opinion.

I noticed it here with some people, too, regarding TDKR since it leaked on-line a day or so ago. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed, because I adore BB and TDK. Especially TDK. My favorite comic book movie. I consider it a masterpiece.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Plenty of posters have been called on "making things up" or "reading into" films a bit too much over the years. There's "interpreting" films, and assessing whats actually there, in the content of the writing and the film itself, and there's making stuff up. The latter seems to be happening a bit more these days.

So you might want to take a closer look when making claims such as "the only ones doing the belittling..."

How is what you quoted me saying “doing the belittling” in any sense?

That post doesn’t belittle anyone. It makes a statement about the way people use conjecture, and was in response to someone who said that people being called on using conjecture to prove something in an argument is a new phenomenon. That’s not belittling someone, it’s a frank discussion of the history of this message board.

Quote:

What I don't understand is this: why is it such a big deal when some people want to see aspects that you didn't like about this movie in a positive light? I mean, it's not like they're trying to see something positive in cinematic abominations such as Twilight or Transformers, which everyone seems to dislike.

This is Chris Nolan's Bat trilogy, one of the best trilogies in recent memory. Is it your disappointment with TDKR or is it something else? Because during my time on these forums I've consistently noticed this trend. And I understand that Nolan's take just wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but what's the issue with it being anyone else's?

Where do you get the idea that anyone here has a problem with you viewing things in a positive light?

The pervading problem on these boards seems to be that there are people who feel that things must be viewed in either a positive or a negative light, and that there is no in between.

In the case of TDKR’s more vocal fans, there seems to be an issue where they refuse to accept that even if they like something, it may not be terribly well written. They seem to think that because they like it, it must invariably be well written. That’s just not, artistically speaking, necessarily the case with this movie.

On the flip side however, I really don’t think you’d find most of the people who have suggested that The Dark Knight is not a well written film suggesting that this means you cannot still like what’s in the movie.

But everytime someone questions the quality of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, someone inevitably says something along the lines of “Why can’t you just let us like the movie”?

Because you’re on a message board, where most of the discussion takes place about both liking a movie and the quality of the movie as a piece of art. And people have opinions on both sides.

People, if you are truly secure in your love of a film, then LOVE the film, warts and all. Stop wasting energy and time whining about other people assessing it on a different level or in a different manner than you have.

The problem is that many of the times the criticism are put forth in a way that to seeks to definitively state flaws as objective flaws. Which can come off as an indirect insult to the tastes of those who liked those very things that the opposing side is calling a defect of the film. That's how the defense starts. At least for me. I've got a thicker skin for it now, but that's how it started in my case.

So Guard, no offense, but when you say "love the film, warts and all" and say that the more critical crowd is assessing the movie "on a different level", that once again seems to imply that people who had less issues with the film just have lower standards and can just ignore certain things. Basically like we're just watching the movie with blinders on. In a sense, what you just said could be boiled down to, "By all means, enjoy your flawed mess of a movie and let the big boys talk." I don't even think that's what you're trying to imply, it just unfortunately can come off as very condescending. And that can get people riled up.

For instance, I actually loved the LOS's inclusion in the film, and them returning in spite of a cleaner Gotham was in fact brilliant, and paved the way for bringing a lot of themes established in Batman Begins full circle. Yet it's constantly hammered on here as a fundamental weakness of the movie. That's why the arguments go in circles and frustration builds on both sides. I'm trying to be more selective about posts I respond to because I think we're at a point where there's a mutual respect between some posters on "opposing" sides of the debate, and each side can more or less guess what the other is going to say before they say it. I try not to add fuel to the fire, and I'm definitely to content to "love the film, warts and all".

And certainly, whining about other people's opinions doesn't get you anywhere, so I totally agree with you in that regard. The simple fact we all need to live with is that with this movie, what some people see as bad writing, others see as good writing and vice versa. It's that simple. If I thought TDKR wasn't well-written, I wouldn't like it nearly as much as I do. So there goes the "accept it's not well-written, but go on loving it" proposal.

The problem is that many of the times the criticism are put forth in a way that to seeks to definitively state flaws as objective flaws. Which can come off as an indirect insult to the tastes of those who liked those very things that the opposing side is calling a defect of the film. That's how the defense starts. At least for me. I've got a thicker skin for it now, but that's how it started in my case.

So Guard, no offense, but when you say "love the film, warts and all" and say that the more critical crowd is assessing the movie "on a different level", that once again seems to imply that people who had less issues with the film just have lower standards and can just ignore certain things. Basically like we're just watching the movie with blinders on. In a sense, what you just said could be boiled down to, "By all means, enjoy your flawed mess of a movie and let the big boys talk." I don't even think that's what you're trying to imply, it just unfortunately can come off as very condescending. And that can get people riled up.

For instance, I actually loved the LOS's inclusion in the film, and them returning in spite of a cleaner Gotham was in fact brilliant, and paved the way for bringing a lot of themes established in Batman Begins full circle. Yet it's constantly hammered on here as a fundamental weakness of the movie. That's why the arguments go in circles and frustration builds on both sides. I'm trying to be more selective about posts I respond to because I think we're at a point where there's a mutual respect between some posters on "opposing" sides of the debate, and each side can more or less guess what the other is going to say before they say it. I try not to add fuel to the fire, and I'm definitely to content to "love the film, warts and all".

And certainly, whining about other people's opinions doesn't get you anywhere, so I totally agree with you in that regard. The simple fact we all need to live with is that with this movie, what some people see as bad writing, others see as good writing and vice versa. It's that simple. If I thought TDKR wasn't well-written, I wouldn't like it nearly as much as I do. So there goes the "accept it's not well-written, but go on loving it" proposal.

Very nice post mate. I agree with what you said. I got blasted by some posters because I said that the problems that you (the viewer) have with the film are yours and not the film itself, but when they want to argue against me they dont use my whole posts just that one sentence, which backs up why I say that. I feel the film is perfect but I get ripped for not seeing the so called flaws. That I have so called lower standards because I dont have anything negative to say about the film. I dont mean or want to hurt anybodys feelings, I just want to express my feelings toward the film and If people are hurt or offended by that then so be it, that cant be helped. People have personal prefrences and some were not met by some fans doesnt mean that they are wrong, but please guys dont go ripping people apart because they like something you dont. We respond or reply to posts not because we have to because we choose to.

The problem is that many of the times the criticism are put forth in a way that to seeks to definitively state flaws as objective flaws. Which can come off as an indirect insult to the tastes of those who liked those very things that the opposing side is calling a defect of the film. That's how the defense starts. At least for me. I've got a thicker skin for it now, but that's how it started in my case.

So Guard, no offense, but when you say "love the film, warts and all" and say that the more critical crowd is assessing the movie "on a different level", that once again seems to imply that people who had less issues with the film just have lower standards and can just ignore certain things. Basically like we're just watching the movie with blinders on. In a sense, what you just said could be boiled down to, "By all means, enjoy your flawed mess of a movie and let the big boys talk." I don't even think that's what you're trying to imply, it just unfortunately can come off as very condescending. And that can get people riled up.

For instance, I actually loved the LOS's inclusion in the film, and them returning in spite of a cleaner Gotham was in fact brilliant, and paved the way for bringing a lot of themes established in Batman Begins full circle. Yet it's constantly hammered on here as a fundamental weakness of the movie. That's why the arguments go in circles and frustration builds on both sides. I'm trying to be more selective about posts I respond to because I think we're at a point where there's a mutual respect between some posters on "opposing" sides of the debate, and each side can more or less guess what the other is going to say before they say it. I try not to add fuel to the fire, and I'm definitely to content to "love the film, warts and all".

And certainly, whining about other people's opinions doesn't get you anywhere, so I totally agree with you in that regard. The simple fact we all need to live with is that with this movie, what some people see as bad writing, others see as good writing and vice versa. It's that simple. If I thought TDKR wasn't well-written, I wouldn't like it nearly as much as I do. So there goes the "accept it's not well-written, but go on loving it" proposal.

Very nice post mate. I agree with what you said. I got blasted by some posters because I said that the problems that you (the viewer) have with the film are yours and not the film itself, but when they want to argue against me they dont use my whole posts just that one sentence, which backs up why I say that. I feel the film is perfect but I get ripped for not seeing the so called flaws. That I have so called lower standards because I dont have anything negative to say about the film. I dont mean or want to hurt anybodys feelings, I just want to express my feelings toward the film and If people are hurt or offended by that then so be it, that cant be helped. People have personal prefrences and some were not met by some fans doesnt mean that they are wrong, but please guys dont go ripping people apart because they like something you dont. We respond or reply to posts not because we have to because we choose to.

That post doesn’t belittle anyone. It makes a statement about the way people use conjecture, and was in response to someone who said that people being called on using conjecture to prove something in an argument is a new phenomenon. That’s not belittling someone, it’s a frank discussion of the history of this message board.

Where do you get the idea that anyone here has a problem with you viewing things in a positive light?

The pervading problem on these boards seems to be that there are people who feel that things must be viewed in either a positive or a negative light, and that there is no in between.

In the case of TDKR’s more vocal fans, there seems to be an issue where they refuse to accept that even if they like something, it may not be terribly well written. They seem to think that because they like it, it must invariably be well written. That’s just not, artistically speaking, necessarily the case with this movie.

On the flip side however, I really don’t think you’d find most of the people who have suggested that The Dark Knight is not a well written film suggesting that this means you cannot still like what’s in the movie.

But everytime someone questions the quality of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, someone inevitably says something along the lines of “Why can’t you just let us like the movie”?

Because you’re on a message board, where most of the discussion takes place about both liking a movie and the quality of the movie as a piece of art. And people have opinions on both sides.

People, if you are truly secure in your love of a film, then LOVE the film, warts and all. Stop wasting energy and time whining about other people assessing it on a different level or in a different manner than you have.

I'll bet you don't since it would hurt your argument. But I'm afraid we'll have to anyway since you insist on pushing this:

I assure you I don't. Otherwise, I would have started with the belittling, wouldn't I?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Oh there's belittling on both sides, no question, but 90% of any belittling remarks usually come in response to those who have been belittled in the first place.

I'll tell you something else, the belittling remarks from the defenders are far more vitriolic. I mean have you seen any name calling going on from the critics, or saying something so asinine as the movie had no problems, the problem is with the viewers?

I've never seen any moderators have to step in and tell any of the critics off before for going too far. But I have with the defenders.

I think your first point really hinges on whatever side of the debate you're on. What I mean to say is that when you're a defender you notice the most extreme and asinine critics as being the majority (while ignoring extreme remarks made by defenders because you simply don't subscribe to those viewpoints), while when you're a critic it's vice-versa.

While I concede the point regarding the vitriolic aspect, I've noticed that critics have a much more subtle way of belittling defenders and while I appreciate subtlety, I don't think belittling's ok just because it's subtle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Who says it's a big deal? Why do you see it as a big deal because someone posts an opinion on a public DISCUSSION message board, and people disagree with it? That's what these forums are for. Discussion.

This isn't the TDKR fan club. There's going to be critics and detractors as much as there will be fans of it.

Of course I realise this is a forum for discussions. That wasn't my point. My point was, is it really that bad to try and see something beyond what the director/author intended (in the context of related works of course)? Isn't that one of the beautiful aspects of cinema, music or the other forms of art? (And you know, this is a forum for DISCUSSION after all. )

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

The Guard's post was based on people making up hypothetical scenarios that were not even in the movie or supported by events and quotes in the movie. Go back and look at the context of the discussion before you take his post out of context. What he said was perfectly valid. People were basically conjecturing with fairy tales.

I am very well aware of the context of that quote, as I was reading the last 6 or so pages of this thread when I spotted it. I don't know, maybe that wasn't his intention, but it certainely came off that way considering the nature of the debate.

@The Guard: I'll admit, maybe I was looking too far into things with that particular quote of yours. Then again, the use of the phrase "making stuff up" suggests a certain nuance considering that I think a lot of the things defenders have proposed aren't that far-fetched in the context of the trilogy. But we're getting into matters of opinion here as well, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

And regarding your points about writing: not really what I was referring to. See above for what I said to The Joker about seeing beyond what authors intend.

One last thing, regarding your question about where do I get my impression: look around, some of the things critics say are just as bad as those said by defenders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

I could go on but that's just a sampling. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed TDKR very much, and I am hopeful when I watch it again on blu-ray in a couple of weeks I'll have an even greater appreciation for it. It's happened to me before. It's happening with fans for The Amazing Spider-Man. A lot of them have loved it even more since it was released recently. A lot of dramatic changes in opinion.

I noticed it here with some people, too, regarding TDKR since it leaked on-line a day or so ago. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed, because I adore BB and TDK. Especially TDK. My favorite comic book movie. I consider it a masterpiece.

No, I get where you're coming from. I've had a hard time swallowing some of the things you've mentioned as well. I've managed to come around to the idea of Bane's association with the LoS mainly because I've come to like his and Talia's stories. On the other hand, I still think I would've liked Bane leading his own LoS in defiance of the Al'Ghul's and actually making his revolutionary intentions more genuine. And of course, seeing more of the citizens' (like in TDK) reactions to what was happening during the movie. I still think the way Blake figured out Bruce was Batman is ******** though. I guess it comes down to this and if you've listened to Kevin Smith's podcasts about the movie, I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about: the beautiful moments in the movie make up for most of the bad things and I've really come around to this viewpoint in the months after seeing the movie.

And I definitely agree with you about TDK, truly a masterpiece. That being said, I'll repeat that I believe BB is just criminally underrated sometimes. Not as good as TDK definitely, but still underrated. Anyway, I hope you'll come to appreciate TDKR more after seeing it again, but if not, well...we'll continue to agree to disagree then.

Someone had mentioned, or rather reveal this to me, way back, but when i look back at this film now, I'm glad that this film really showed first on that if faced with a similar crises on his own well being (physically and mentally/emotionally) that Dent was back in TDK, that Bruce could overcome that same obstacle and not succumb into the darkness that Dent did.

Back before TDKR had been released, I had talked with quite a few people who believed that if Bruce was given the same trauma and desolation, where he really did lose everything like Dent had done, that he could have ended up the same since before the encounter with Two Face, they felt that the only thing that Bruce lost was a way out of being Batman from Dent's injuries to Rachel's death, whereas Harvey had lost Rachel as well but was severely scarred by the fire and felt betrayed by those who he felt was responsible for Rachel's death and his predicament.

In "TDKR" we saw Bruce lose everything; no wealth, no Alfred, people of Gotham despised him as Batman, he had his back broken, he was betrayed by both Selina and Talia at different points, and he was stuck in the Prison while having to watch Gotham go under Bane's reign of Terror. Yet, he willed himself to overcome all of that, and overcome the temptation of sweet release from death from the nuclear bomb and face a even greater challenge, living a normal life at the end.